UK thought police arrest woman for silent prayer

[Metaphor]

No, the information Rhea has provided in answer to your questions (which you could have found yourself tbh) clearly indicates the woman was arrested for violating the PSPO.

Yes, I understand she was arrested for violating the PSPO by 'protesting' (assuming she was arrested for condition i) ).

The police officer did not arrest her until she said she was maybe praying in her head. That, apparently, was the evidence he needed to determine she was protesting, and therefore arrest her. Do you disagree?

You obviously didn't read the PSPO despite Rhea linking to it,

Yes, I read it. That's why I referred to conditions i - v. Did you not understand I was referring to the PSPO?

or at least didn't read it with comprehension. The definitions and requirements section holds the answers to most of your questions.

‘Protesting’ means being in the restricted area (whether by yourself or with others) and engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not limited to, graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling; ‘Service user’ includes any patient or visitor to the Robert Clinic.

REQUIREMENTS 8. A person who is believed to have engaged in a breach of this order or in anti-social behaviour within the restricted area, is required to give their name and address to a police officer, police community support officer or other person designated by Birmingham City Council.
9. A person who is believed to have engaged in a breach of this order or in anti-social behaviour within the restricted area, is required to leave the area if asked to do so by a police officer, police community support officer or other person designated by Birmingham City Council.

Ffs read the PSPO before asking whether the cops were enforcing it correctly.

It does not hold the answer to any of my questions, and they remain unanswered.

You've posted conditions 8 and 9 here. Are they supposed to explain something? What do they explain? The woman was not asked to leave the area; she was asked to come to the police station.

Furthermore, we have reason to believe she was doing so knowingly and deliberately.

We also have reason to believe it was part of an ongoing campaign of disruption, harassment, and intimidation being orchestrated by her and her organization. I would not be at all surprised to learn that the police recognized her from previous incidents at that location.

That whole "maybe I'm praying in my head" shtick is a troll tactic. She wasn't supposed to be there unless she had legitimate business there (which she didn't).

Existing in the space is not a violation of the PSPO, so 'not supposed to be there' is not a thing.

I was and remain concerned that this police power is so subjective and so wide-reaching that a police officer can decide you were protesting based on what you say about what was going on in your head.

You are and remain completely oblivious to the fact the woman in the OP is the head of the group whose relentless and on-going protests lead to the overwhelming majority of local residents petitioning the Council for the PSPO, and who most likely is easily recognizable as a serial harasser of the clinic's staff, clients, and neighbors.

I am not oblivious to that fact. I am sure she was, in fact, recognised. Was she arrested because of those previous violations only? That does not seem clear to me from the video. If she was arrested partly because of the incident in the video, then my question remains: why was the incident in the video something to be arrested for? Do you believe the PSPO order should have been written so broadly that it is up to a police officer's subjective interpretation that somebody is 'protesting'?

She's not some random person just passing through while thinking about god. And even if she were, she was required to leave the area when asked to do so by the officer.

The officer did not ask her to leave the area. The officer asked her to come to the police station.

But perhaps you only care about police power when it's used against groups you favour?

I care about police power. I also care about laws, regulations, and codes of conduct. There are over 200 million adults in my society. We all have opinions, and we all need to get along despite our differences. The rules should be sensible and they should be enforced, hopefully with a minimum amount of violence.

I believe in and support the Right of Free Speech. I do not believe in or support any alleged 'right' to be an asshole, to harass people or intimidate them, to accost them as they go about their business, or deliberately offend or insult them. And I don't have a whole lot of respect for trolls. Maybe it's because I was a moderator on the old IIDB and Talk Rational for years, but IMO trolls like the woman in the OP are just being shitty so people will notice them.

I really do not see how this woman is 'trolling'. To troll somebody, in my understanding, is to say anything possible to shit stir them, with the entire end goal just to get a negative reaction from them. I don't think this woman is trolling anyone. I think she wants to shame women out of getting abortions.

As for this PSPO: I continue to be concerned about the first clause. It is written so broadly that there appears to be no limit at all as to what can be interpreted as 'protesting'.

 

[Gospel]

why did he ask her if she was praying?

I'll take a wild guess here. Could be that he was building a case against her (which is similar to what the police do here in America). If she admitted to praying it could be used as evidence that she was breaking the law. The PSPO says prayer (which itself is verbal or non verbal) is a violation . Get it now? GOSH!

 

[Metaphor]

why did he ask her if she was praying?

I'll take a wild guess here. Could be that he was building a case against her (which is similar to what the police do here in America). If she admitted to praying it could be used as evidence that she was breaking the law. The PSPO says prayer (which itself is verbal or non verbal) is a violation . Get it now? GOSH!

Yet I've been told repeatedly on this thread that she was not arrested for praying in her head. Yet, as the PSPO says:

‘Protesting’ means being in the restricted area (whether by yourself or with others) and
engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval,
with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not
limited to, graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling;

"Counselling" is usually something that has to involve two people and presumably would involve graphic, verbal, or written means; I would have assumed the 'prayer' would also need to be external somehow, but this just brings me back to my original objection. If she was arrested for protesting, and the evidence for this protesting was internal prayer (indeed, the evidence could be anything the police officer thinks is 'protesting'), then that PSPO is an awful overreach.

 

[Politesse]

The police are seldom the best tool to use in settling a dispute; they cause as much upset as they resolve, and should be employed as sparingly as possible. We say "police" because "the part of the military we use against the citizens" is too uncomfortable.

 

[Gospel]

why did he ask her if she was praying?

I'll take a wild guess here. Could be that he was building a case against her (which is similar to what the police do here in America). If she admitted to praying it could be used as evidence that she was breaking the law. The PSPO says prayer (which itself is verbal or non verbal) is a violation . Get it now? GOSH!

Yet I've been told repeatedly on this thread that she was not arrested for praying in her head. Yet, as the PSPO says:

‘Protesting’ means being in the restricted area (whether by yourself or with others) and
engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval,
with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not
limited to, graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling;

"Counselling" is usually something that has to involve two people and presumably would involve graphic, verbal, or written means; I would have assumed the 'prayer' would also need to be external somehow, but this just brings me back to my original objection. If she was arrested for protesting, and the evidence for this protesting was internal prayer (indeed, the evidence could be anything the police officer thinks is 'protesting'), then that PSPO is an awful overreach.

She was arrested for praying in her head (by her own admission). It was against the law to pray or counsel within that zone. according to the law you can't even be there to show support for the clinic. Protesting of all types is restricted and rightfully so if neighbors (commercial or residential) got tired of the disruptions and asked that their tax money be used to temporarily stop the bull.

Edit: Pray OR counsel means it doesn't have to be a combination of both it is either or.

 

[ZiprHead]

“Isabel Vaughan-Spruce Co-CEO of March for Life UK”
“The woman who was arrested, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, is the director of the U.K. March for Life.”

Strange that the National Review article didn't include that bit of information.

 

[Rhea]

“Including BUT NOT LIMITED TO:”
…ignored in the service of pretending she is not deliberately harassing and intimidating by showing up and garnering
“FOUR COUNTS”
… of violating the order.


I roll my eyes at an intelligent person pretending he does not understand exactly what this woman is doing.
I have zero respect for people like this woman who troll and brink and goad and then claim, “what? Me? What did I do precisely, this time?” When what she did precisely was intimidate and harass every day by edgelording the brink of the violation.

This is why the neighborhood has asked for the boundaries of the PSPO to be expanded, now that the harassing zealots have shown that they will hang their toes over the edge of the order every day. The original order was to get the harassers out of the sight of those they were trying to harass. The town reduced the area, putting them back within sight, saying, “well, lets not block off the church, shall we? Even though it’s in sight - it’s a church, you know? How can they be bad?” And now the residents are saying, “This is why. These harassers are relentless trolls.”


The woman IS THE LEADER and ORGANIZER of the harassers who have been disrupting this neighborhood and harassing clients to tears for years. Do you think they don’t know exactly what she’s done? That she knows exactly what she’s done and it is according to her plan? And she, like you, says, “but this particular time is arguably not precisely bad (if you ignore ‘but not limited to,’) and I’ll say that every time, while the sum total is obviously harassing and that’s my goal.”



That is why trolling and goading, such as FOUR COUNTS of violation, equals harassment. She knows, I know and you know that her INTENT is to harass.

 

[Rhea]

THE ACTIVITIES
The Activities prohibited by the Order are:

• i Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling,
• ii Interfering, or attempting to interfere, whether verbally or physically, with a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or member of staff,
• iii Intimidating or harassing, or attempting to intimidate or harass, a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or a member of staff,
• iv Recording or photographing a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or member of staff or
• v Displaying any text or images relating directly or indirectly to the termination of pregnancy.

It is written broadly to encompass the particular intmidating tactics that this group has been using for YEARS as is documented by the neighborhood and the clinic and presented to the city. The harassers have created their own rules. Their Prime Directive is to harass and disrupt the access. That is their whole point.. Any way they are stopped from it, they will find another way to harass, intimidate and disrupt.. They have shown for years that this is their Prime Directive. They have been crystal clear.

So the law had to be written, for this neighborhood, in such a way as to protect from these specific tactics.

And again, this is not subtle or ambiguous, and this woman trying to pretend that it is subtle and ambiguous is her being a troll. And a harasser. And therefore a violator of the law.

 

[TomC]

TomC chose to ignore most of my post whilst endorsing the outcome of this incident, where he himself does not appear to understand (or wants to ignore) the implications.

I snipped the rest of your post because I didn't have specific answers. I don't live in Birmingham, I've never even been to UK.

As the whole story unfolds, it has become clear that it more like the local story I did describe than your narrative about thought police overreach.

And if you want to blame someone for this overreach, put the blame where it really goes. Squarely on Ms V-S and her organization. It's their continued pushing against the local laws that caused the city council to write and enforce this ordinance in the first place.

If anyone has read my posts on the subject they'll know I'm opposed to elective abortions. But that doesn't mean V-S can flout the law with impunity. In fact, I honestly doubt that the cause is as important to her as her own ego. There are much better uses of her time and effort if the goal is reducing abortions. If the goal is feeling important and persecuted she's doing very well.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

This head troll was protesting and most likely knew what she was doing becauseshe refused to voluntarily comply with a request in order to get arrested.

The depths of feigned obtuseness displayed in the defense of this woman ordinarily would make me wonder, but not in this instance.

 

[Gospel]

This head troll was protesting and most likely knew what she was doing becauseshe refused to voluntarily comply with a request in order to get arrested.

The depths of feigned obtuseness displayed in the defense of this woman ordinarily would make me wonder, but not in this instance.

This reminds me of a white friend of mine protesting speed bumps in his neighborhood by converting his truck into a hi-risers to avoid reducing speed. He took the tickets like a champ and now coal rolls over each bump instead. I don't agree with his reasoning (such as all the kids on the street grew up and moved on so the bumps aren't necessary anymore) because some people may sell their homes to new families. But he's not decrying his rights violated over the behest of others. Nor is he making a public appeal over it

Yeah I know the two issues are not the same.

 

[TomC]

This reminds me of a white friend of mine

Oh look how Woke Gospel is.

He's got a white friend.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

This head troll was protesting and most likely knew what she was doing becauseshe refused to voluntarily comply with a request in order to get arrested.

Refusing to go to the police station voluntarily does not mean you did it in order to get arrested.

The depths of feigned obtuseness displayed in the defense of this woman ordinarily would make me wonder, but not in this instance.

 

[TomC]

Refusing to go to the police station voluntarily does not mean you did it in order to get arrested.

The depths of feigned obtuseness displayed in the defense of this woman

I don't always find LD particularly insightful. But this one's easy.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Refusing to go to the police station voluntarily does not mean you did it in order to get arrested.

The depths of feigned obtuseness displayed in the defense of this woman

I don't always find LD particularly insightful. But this one's easy.
Tom

The circumstance that Metaphor disagrees with laughing dog about the arrest because considerations about this case that are important to laughing dog are unimportant to Metaphor, and vice versa, does not constitute "feigned obtuseness". Laughing dog does not have a reason to think it constitutes "feigned obtuseness". Metaphor is neither feigning nor being obtuse. He is simply disagreeing with the progressives and having the unforgiveable uppitiness to explain why. Calling what he wrote "feigned obtuseness" was simply a way for laughing dog to imply "I give myself and my allies permission to dismiss your argument without refuting it by the expedient of claiming without evidence that you already know we're right and are just being a dick about admitting it." It's intellectually dishonest and it's a childish rhetorical tactic.

 

[Bomb#20]

You are and remain completely oblivious to the fact the woman in the OP is the head of the group whose relentless and on-going protests lead to the overwhelming majority of local residents petitioning the Council for the PSPO, and who most likely is easily recognizable as a serial harasser of the clinic's staff, clients, and neighbors.

And that's relevant information...

I believe in and support the Right of Free Speech.

... because "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

 

[Bomb#20]

why did he ask her if she was praying?

I'll take a wild guess here. Could be that he was building a case against her (which is similar to what the police do here in America). If she admitted to praying it could be used as evidence that she was breaking the law. The PSPO says prayer (which itself is verbal or non verbal) is a violation . Get it now? GOSH!

Good work for being the one to finally point out the elephant in the room.

So I take it you're agreeing with me and Metaphor that the various people in this thread from post #2 onwards, who've asserted that the Yahoo news headline and thread title are wrong because the woman wasn't arrested for silent prayer, were all talking complete bosh.

 

[Gospel]

why did he ask her if she was praying?

I'll take a wild guess here. Could be that he was building a case against her (which is similar to what the police do here in America). If she admitted to praying it could be used as evidence that she was breaking the law. The PSPO says prayer (which itself is verbal or non verbal) is a violation . Get it now? GOSH!

Good work for being the one to finally point out the elephant in the room.

So I take it you're agreeing with me and Metaphor that the various people in this thread from post #2 onwards, who've asserted that the Yahoo news headline and thread title are wrong because the woman wasn't arrested for silent prayer, were all talking complete bosh.

I suppose so. I mean, the law basically says that nobody is welcome there for any reason outside of having business being there. So yeah, going there to pray is not only a violation it's literally given as an example of restricted behavior. On the other hand If this was a permanent thing I can understand Metaphor's outrage, but that doesn't seem to be the case. What it seems to be is people who live and work in that community (unlike the trouble maker in this case) grew tired of all the commotion and asked for local officials to do something about it and this was their compromise. A temporary restriction on everybody. Not side A or side B of the issue but every single one of yawl. That seems fair to me.

 

[Bomb#20]

What do you think would happen if one person got away with a silent protest in that area? Others would show up by the dozens to do the same.

Then the police would be dealing with a manifestly different situation, which they would be perfectly capable of dealing with in a manifestly different way. There are all manner of things individuals are allowed to do that groups are not allowed to do.

Is silently praying one of those things?

You can't arrest the first person that shows up but the next silent prayer protester gets busted? How does that work?

When they show up by the dozens to do the same they're collectively blocking the route in and out of the clinic. Then the police show up and order them to disperse. If they don't disperse they get arrested for blocking a public right-of-way.

 

[Gospel]

Silent prayer is prayer folks.